CSIRO Awarded A$59.6M for Research into Low Emission Transport Fuels

9 May 2007

Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) has been allocated A$59.6 million (US$49 million) over four years to increase research into renewable and non-renewable natural resources which can produce low emission transport fuels.

Under the Energy Transformed National Research Flagship, work will be expanded to include research related to the conversion of coal to liquids, gas to liquids, solar gas to liquids, bio-fuels and storage of high density natural gas for transport.

The work is designed to help secure Australia’s transport fuel future, which is coming under increasing pressure. It is predicted that by 2030, Australia will self-supply only 49% of its required petroleum.

The opportunity for Australia, and CSIRO, is to reduce the likelihood of an economic and social shock of a major disruption to oil supplies and to minimize the cost of implementing change in the transport sector. We have to do this while at the same time reducing the transport sector’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

—Dr. Geoff Garrett, CSIRO Chief Executive

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are 43% above the International Energy Agency average for developed countries per unit of GDP; 68% of the country’s greenhouse gases are related to stationary energy and transport.

CSIRO’s National Research Flagships were launched in 2003 to address major national challenges in areas such as energy, water and health and also opportunities for industry development and job creation.

The fuels research is part of an A$2.8 billion (US$2.3 billion), four-year funding package awarded to CSIRO. Other transportation-related research projects include a focus on lithium-ion batteries and supercapacitors.

Another new Flagship funded under the new budget is the Climate Adaptation National Research Flagship, to be formed in collaboration with partners such as the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Greenhouse Office. It will receive A$43.6 over the next four years.

Comments

Perhaps the could dig out of mothballs the EcoCommodore.

http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_52517/newsarticle.html

"Holden Unveils "Green" Car

24 May, 2000

Holden today unveiled a leading edge concept vehicle that uses 50 per cent less fuel than a conventional family car and dramatically reduces exhaust emissions. The advanced hybrid-electric powered ECOmmodore has been developed jointly by Holden and CSIRO and is designed with the emphasis on practicality and achievable technology. It is the first hybrid-electric vehicle to be produced by an Australian automotive manufacturer and is the only one of its type in the world.

Like the top-selling Holden Commodore it is based on, the ECOmmodore is a full-sized family car. Its unique hybrid-electric powertrain — which combines an electric motor powered by supercapacitors and advanced lead-acid batteries with a four-cylinder aluminium alloy petrol engine — delivers the same level of performance as a standard 3.8 litre V6.

The ECOmmodore's technologies are specifically targeted at improving overall vehicle efficiency. These include significant mass reduction through the use of advanced, lightweight materials, clever aerodynamics, reduced rolling resistance and regenerative braking."

Note the date at the top - 24th May 2000. They could do this 7 years ago and now they need more money to repeat what they did then??????

Amazing how such a car could be developed, then shelved and then we somehow need money to research it again. Perhaps GM (Holden's parent company) would have a car to sell in competition with the Prius if they had marketed this car in 2000. The Eco Commodore is far more practical than the Prius as it is a family size car.

The EcoCommodore was a concept car. The point of a concept car is to pull out all the stops to see how the public responds. Perhaps seven years ago the public yawned. No public interest = no market = no reason to produce it.

Cervus - "The EcoCommodore was a concept car. The point of a concept car is to pull out all the stops to see how the public responds. Perhaps seven years ago the public yawned. No public interest = no market = no reason to produce it."

Yes and no. It was a modified production car not a fibreglass shell. As for public interest Toyota managed to market the Prius with no market. However that market developed and now Toyota is the green manufacturer and World No 1. The Prius was started in 1998 or so well before the market developed.

The point is though why do they need so much money to re-invent the wheel?

We've been over and over GM's problems relating to legacy costs. I don't think it's worthwhile to rehash them forever.

At any rate, there's obviously a lot of problems with GM's American management. There is a corporate culture problem that goes back literally decades that will be very hard to change. GM and Ford are starting to bring over European designers and European cars. Just look at what's happening to Saturn. The new Aura is basically an Opel, and the Ion replacement is the Opel Astra.

The American automakers also have a nasty habit of using very cheap materials in their interiors, at least until recently. That's a different issue than efficiency, but it shows a very bad attitude towards their customers.

there are DME developments in China today!
We see great potential for DME as a clean alternative fuel . The present diesel oil is a major source of air pollution from diesel engine of trucks and busses in large city like Tokyo. The potential market of diesel oil substitute is larger than LPG. DME is one of ideal fuel for diesel engine. DME vehicles were demonstratively manufactured in Japan, China and Korea and their driving test already started. Practical durability fleet test of a DME truck is under going in Japan.

We are pleased to organise a conference on China taking the lead in the DME market in production from coal and Japan and Korea activities.

If you would like to know more on COAL to Syngas to DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

It is interesting that the Australian govt. has had data on a world first, world class Australian emission reduction technology, now marketed as Nanotech Products, since 1998, and Rob Welford, then environment minister for Queensland, Australia, was videoed at the 1998 Festival of the Future in Cooroy, forcefully stating his undertaking to the Sunshine Coast Environmental Council that this technology would be adopted for the Govt Fleet in Queensland within 18 months and would receive the full support of his Govt.

Mr Welford had just inspected several vehicles, one was notably a new V8 Holden Stateman similar to his Govt car, displaying zero toxic emissions and with vastly increased 'distance to empty'of 1000 km. He personally witnessed and stated how impressed he was when he saw four different vehicles volunteered by bystanders, selected at random, all going from 'over the limit' of emissions to ZERO toxic emissions after application of this product. The equipment was operated by the Queensland Govt's chief emission testing supervisor.
A followup visit to Mr Welfords office yielded absolutely nothing but promises to get in touch soon. This never occurred.

About 12 months later, when we followed up ourselves we were referred to the Export authorities, and were subsequently told by the Export Incentive staff to have our product tested in the US to Californian standards, as Australia really had inferior standards. We were told that if we successfully proved the product worked in the US, the Australian Federal Govt. would fully support manuf. and export industry activities.

We delivered the best results ever achieved in California in 2000 and 2001 at enormous cost. We had results of 78% reduction of carbon particles, and 46% redution of NOX, and all particular emissions reduced, together with 20% better fuel economy on a well worn 1998 V8 Chev. motor. These results were signed off by a leading authority on emissions with 3 PhD's, who was amazed at the results and said we had the best product he had ever seen. The Calif. Air board told us that we would have to pay $12 million for further testing and then they could license the product. We were subsequently subjected to some very underhanded attempts by people who had contacts at the Board, to gain control of our company and products. Initial agreements to purchase $2 million of product in the first year were not honoured, our shares in a new US company became worthless when we would not hand over the manufacturing and all rights to our products, based on assurances that we would get Govt support, both State and Federal, due to our results. This never eventuated and in 2007 we are still waiting for that wonderful Govt. support. We have had so many assurances, visits from EPA consultants and 'experts'...who did nothing but waste our time and money. John Howards chief advisor on emissions commenced a meeting with the statement that "Firstly, let me tell you that I know nothing about cars or emissions, I just know where the key goes"

He was probably hand picked by Howard for his eneptitude.

Nanotechnology does have a major drawback, it currently reduces normal fuel usage by 30% and 50% plus with advanced engine management systems. That hugely desirable feature is what puts it policitically in the 'lets pretend it doesn't exist' basket...think what we would lose in revenue!!!

To date, we have never received one cent against the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on overseas testing, airfares, accomodation etc. despite assurances and submitting paperwork with the names of ministers, authorities, laboratories, overseas forums and shows that we attended over a period of years.

All this is aimed at protecting Australians from huge emission reductions, better than any Toyota Prius, or Honda Hybrid, available on any family car post 1986 in reasonable condition...for the modest sum of around $600 per vehicle. All types of vehicles and fuels are suitably responsive to this technology and Toyota has been given billions, enviro. awards and support by Govt. fleets for delivering a substandard, health threatening vehicle that only costs $15,000 more than a 'normal' Toyota Echo.

You heard it here first, from Nanotech Products, that Hybrid vehicles are a health hazard, and given that cars are now classed as workplaces...go figure why a Toyota Prius can emit one thousand times more electropollution to the driver, than any office worker can be subjected to legally. Toyota were informed of this fact when the vehicle was 'launched' in Qld with much fanfare.

NOBODY IS MEASURING THESE VEHICLES FROM A HEALTH & SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, and just wait unti they do. People will be avoiding the Hybrids like the plague, unless they enjoy abnormal blood pressure, brainwaves, pulse rate and their breathing to be badly affected...as measured on medical instruments.

Interestingly, the same pollution reduction product makes hybrids biologically inert compared to the array of abnormal OH&S readings in a 'non-fitted' vehicle. Our product can provably deliver equal or better emission results on any standard vehicle post 1986, than any hybrid, for a total of $600 per vehicle, once only lifetime fitting. This low cost, together with the improvement in fuel economy and the wide footprint across any fuel, especially diesel emissions, makes our product unpopular with govt. revenue watchers even if they are paying lip service to CLEAN AIR, NEW TECHN0LOGY, BLAH BLAH. The footnote is that this is no longer new, as Nanotechnology has been proven for over a decade, by a number of loyal clients, in govt, corporate and industrial applications... and this is a very sad story which really deserves a happy ending.

Is anyone out there intested in any further information and in taking this out of marketing mothballs and into a worlwide market starting in Australia. CSIRO scientists are welcome to conduct experiments and or review our weighed particle emission testing data from the California Clean Air Authority...

If you are for real, please contact Elizabeth Orchard, Nanotech Products, on +61 407808282